Talk:μTorrent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Macintosh task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Conduit Toolbar Controversy[edit]

I suggest we move the paragraph on the conduit engine to its own section. As a secondary suggestion, we remove it entirely until sourced.

As it appears now, it implicates uTorrent has "gone bad" like many bittorrent clients before it. As I understand it, this is simply not the case. For one thing, you CAN opt-out of the toolbar installation which means none of the "surreptious" spying stuff gets installed.

Remember the controversy regarding the Shareaza page. There some wiki guardian managed to postpone vital information regarding its takeover by the media industry (making it a dangerous piece of malware) for far too long.

I sincerely hope we won't get the reverse over here: that Wikipedia gives off misleading implications uTorrent isn't "clean" when in fact it remains so. CapnZapp (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere in the page, its no longer 'clean' - it is installing things without permission. Before doing such a spirited defence of it, please do some searching. Or, get an old version from somewhere, install it, and then do an upgrade - will only take you a few minutes. The article has a sentence 'the user may explicitly opt-out of this feature by deselecting it.' This sentence, first off is a lie. It has two supporting references. One reference does not mention opting out. The other reference is a old quote from the CEO of the company, promising that when the toolbar is made, in future, it will be opt-out. These are hardly authoritative or disinterested sources. And then the forums are full of people saying it is not opt-out, when upgrading.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.75.182 (talkcontribs) 11:34, 10 January 2011
What exactly needs to be sourced here? If you install uTorrent via either new install or use the updater from without uTorrent, it installs the Conduit web installer thing for both IE and Firefox, and the μTorrent Toolbar for both IE and Firefox. Neither or these are asked about during the installer, but are installed without the user's express permission.
--Powerlord (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It most definitely needs to be in here. Here, and bittorrent. It's not really controversial... just google around, see for yourself.. it's a really big thing. On some machines it doesn't install anything extra, but on many it installs a toolbar, an addon and a 'conduit engine' system application, all three without the user's permission, even when they 'opt out'. And very many of them have major issues uninstalling the third part, the program, which for many users does nothing when they attempt to uninstall it. BitTorrent's forum staff are paid to lie, or are themselves lied to. BitTorrent bought uTorrent's code to clone to it's crappy client, and bought it's reputation which they are now milking to the last drop. edit: The difficult-to-remove, unpermitted software usually comes when you upgrade, not from fresh installs. Just thought I'd mention that before you spend 5 minutes installing it and immediately think we're all lying.
Some links.. this is the most relevant edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9CTorrent&diff=prev&oldid=403796061 . I'm not saying it's in the right spot or doesn't need citations. A couple others: http://www.torrent-invites.com/bittorrent-news/86501-utorrent-browser-toolbar-mystery-causes-confusion.html#post779666 and http://forums.cnet.com/7726-6142_102-5121639.html. LieAfterLie (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Has this received coverage from reliable sources? The links provided, and most of the links I could find, where mostly forum posts and the odd blog, neither of these are usually usable. Rehevkor 10:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are two sources which I believe meet with the wikipedia policy of reliable sources: http://firstarkansasnews.net/2010/12/so-long-utorrent/ and http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-browser-toolbar-mystery-causes-havoc-among-users-101218/. For interest, the malware can come from fresh installs also. If there are no further objections, since we now have sources, I don't see why this shouldn't be put back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TsB23 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Section added to the article with sources based on no further objections. TsB23 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it. According to the source you cite, "Despite several complaints the issues seem to be relatively isolated. We’ve tried to reproduce the “bug” on several systems but at our end everything went fine." A rare problem doesn't seem note-worthy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a section whose inclusion was not objected to, please discuss on the talk page before deleting sections without discussion. All previous objections have been listened to and accounted for. The section added is verifiable, and the issue of notability as you mention it relates to whether something deserves its own article or not, not the content of an article. Wikipedia exists to describe things in an encyclopedic manner. Whether the incident is a bug or is intentional is irrelevant. The installation of this engine without permission onto thousands off users' systems is an event (and a large one at that) relating to the software, and in describing the software in an encyclopedic manner, should be included. TsB23 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but the burden is on you, not me. Nobody is questioning whether the bug was intentional; the source says it was "relatively isolated" and difficult to reproduce. What makes that notable? What makes torrentfreak.com a reliable source? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise if I offended you, that was not my intention.
I fail to see how the issue possibly being relatively isolated and difficult to reproduce matters. The fact is that it does exist, and for that matter has been noted in said reference to have affected many users ("the uTorrent forums have been filling up ... others wrote blog posts"). As the guidelines state that articles should describe the content in an encyclopedic manner, with notability referring to whether or not an issue deserves its own article, this issue seems to fully merit inclusion. Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article.
As for TorrentFreak, it is a well-known and widely referenced website, probably the leading website regarding torrent-related news. To quote from their wikipedia entry, TorrentFreak "is widely used as a source of original reporting on digital issues". To quote from the about section[1] on their website, "TorrentFreak was featured on mainstream news outlets such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times the BBC, the Guardian and the LA Times." I don't see how there can be much issue as to the reliability of TorrentFreak.com as a source. TsB23 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess I should have done more research about TorrentFreak, starting with our own article, before I asked about its reliability. blushing
I'm not reading the article the same way you are. I see that a program with "a few dozen million downloads a year" has caused problems for "several" readers, "several" forum posters, and an indeterminate number of bloggers. I think we need to consider whether we're giving undue weight to a small problem. If the article does mention the problem, it should make clear that this is a rare event, not an everyday occurrence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of accuracy, a simple google search shows that this has affected a sizable number of users. I am not suggesting that this should be considered a reliable source, but for the purposes of this discussion, it does show that the problem is widespread. I am inclined to agree, however, that the article should state that this isn't an everyday occurance, but I am wary of bias in the other direction also, since this clearly isn't limited to just a few users. I am cautious in actually labelling the potential number of users this affects since we don't have raw statistics to back up such an argument, but as I said, making clear that this isn't an everyday occurance seems wise. I am submitting a proposed revision which I hope addresses your concerns. TsB23 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Some past discussion on TorrentFreak can be found here. The jist from a quick read is that it can be used with care. Opinion pieces, for example, shouldn't be used. At least in my view. Dunno if that gives any perspective on this discussion. Яehevkor 09:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Easter Eggs (again)[edit]

Renamed Trivia to Easter Eggs. --Lexein 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

SO cool! I never knew about the hidden tetris game! That's is just SWEET! 72.192.135.223 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Reinstated the Easter Eggs article that someone seems to have deleted without checking about it's usefulness. Frosset Mareritt
07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What's the point of including them? They're against WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO. --SaberExcalibur! 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In uTorrent's case, the app's remarkably small size, and the presence of two Easter Eggs, makes them notable at least as a footnote. I concede that the image of uTris may not survive a relevance cull, and that the EEs may belong either in Features or as a footnote. WP is not a User's Manual is why I trimmed off the "p" and nav keys text. --Lexein (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Servant_Saber, could you please point out where exactly "Easter Eggs" are mentioned in the guides that you linked above? ∴ AlexSm 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I could be inclined to agree with that the inclusion of easter eggs in such a small program, even if it is only a publicity stunt, might warrant inclusion. However, in no larger extent than a line or two under Features, not it's own top-level header, and not without a source on what makes the easter eggs notable. Simply including it because "that's how it is" is nothing but WP:OR and your personal POV. --SaberExcalibur! 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved Eastern Eggs section, already minimized to justifiable size by Lexein, to the Features section and placed it directly below the size subsection so that the article flows nicely. I removed the importance template because I anticipate Saber agrees with this new setup because it complies with his inclination. Correct me if I'm wrong. I also merged the two separate Eastern Eggs discussions into one. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to currently be any mention of the Tetris Easter Eggs. In fact, I came here to remind me how to access the minigame, only to find the content had to be removed (I've worked it out now though). I know some editors might claim that without press coverage it amounts to original research, but as with all wiki policies that is only a guideline so if the general feeling among people visiting this page is that the Easter Eggs should be mentioned then this is what should happen. Skip1337 (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, someone seems to have deleted the easter eggs section. I know this is WP:TRIVIA, but, as Lexein said, the easter eggs are quite notable when you look at the size of uTorrent.--REMEMBER CMO 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with them if a source is provided that establishes their notability. A personal blog source doesn't cut it. Presuming they're notable just because of file size is a little preposterous to me. Rehevkor 02:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is out of date, website is long gone[edit]

Site's long gone with no explanation. Just completely gone. I came here trying to find info on it and there's nothing but out of date text. 166.205.139.201 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? http://www.utorrent.com/ resolves fine for me. --Izno (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I'd not visited it in two years and the first time I did it was down so I assumed it had to be down for a while. 166.205.136.243 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Utorrent and its Malware[edit]

uTorrent's malware can be avoided if the user does NOT launch the freshly downloaded uTorrent executable, but places it in any drive's Program Files\Utorrent folder. When placed in that folder, the software thinks of itself as being "installed" - and, therefore, doesn't try to inflict malware. I'm not adding this to official article due to the fact it's not "confirmed by relevant sources". However, privately, I can confirm (or anybody else can confirm for themselves) - Utorrent does NOT split itself into installer and software itself, an "installed" copy will act as installer if not in the designated folder. PortableApps Wrapper can fool uTorrent into thinking it is located in designated folder, and then do its typical task of swapping local folders into variables.Yura87 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What malware? Rehevkor 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Malware/garbage in uTorrent[edit]

Yura87 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC) One of those is the unwanted Babylon software. The other one was already mentioned in this discussion. Anyway, the less risky way of installing uTorrent is to move it to any drive's Program Files.

Dumb question about article URL[edit]

Why does the URL for "µTorrent (or uTorrent; commonly abbreviated as "µT" or "uT")" read ../Mtorrent? Shouldn't it be ../Utorrent, since that's the most common alternative spelling? I've also never heard of it called (or seen it spelled) "Mtorrent" or "mTorrent". I just thought it looked weird is all. 24.85.78.2 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tag at the top of the article explains "The title of this article contains the character μ. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as mTorrent, MTorrent or uTorrent." I believe "M" is used as that's the capital form of "µ", see Mu (letter). Due to technical limitations in the Mediawiki software means in the URLs for every article start with a capital letter. Hope this helps. Rehevkor 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The letter used isn't actually M, it's uppercase mu, which looks the same as an M, but isn't; consequently, this is why it is possible to lowercase the title for display, if not linking. --Izno (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Several Greek letters are identical to Latin letters. For example, the uppercase Greek letters Α (alpha), Β (beta), Ε (epsilon), Ζ (zeta), Η (eta), Ι (iota), Κ (kappa), Μ (mu), Ν (nu), Ο (omicron), Ρ (rho), Τ (tau), and Χ (chi) are identical typographically to the Latin letters A, B, E, Z, H, I, K, M, N, O, P, T, and X, respectively; and the lowercase Greek letter ο (omicron) is identical typographically to the Latin letter o. --208.80.119.67 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean markup[edit]

The Languages section could use some cleanup. A list is better than a table. 81.232.38.154 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed targeted advertising in uTorrent[edit]

BitTorrent, Inc. recently announced that future versions of the client would include targeted advertising. After TorrentFreak and other sites spread the news, there was a massive backlash and users (many registered specifically to complain) flooded the uTorrent forum with negative comments and either reverted to old versions or switched to other clients en masse (or at least they said they did or would do so). Naturally this resulted in hasty backtracking by the management, who have now said that users will be able to turn the in-app advertising off. They may even listen to user complaints and possibly begin selling another paid version with bloat such as apps removed (since apps haven't been a huge success).

My point is, don't any of these developments (even as a passing mention) qualify as being worthy of inclusion in the article here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.9.21 (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the advertising issue came up in the past, and newly this year, and, as then, we'll await independent reliable sources (WP:RS like news, magazines, but not wikis, forums, or blogs) which cover the subject in some depth. WP tries not to breathlessly report things because WP is WP:NOTNEWS not the news. We minimize citing press releases, or mirrors of them in the press. All that said, it is valuable for readers and new editors to keep throwing stuff against the wall to see if it will stick - some percentage of the time, another editor will search and find an RS, and the new claim will be cited, and therefore "stick." All suggestions welcome. In summary: read WP:42. It is the answer. --Lexein (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Update - I missed that CNET had noted the introduction. Added. --Lexein (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bittorrent and MPAA 2005 announcement[edit]

The press release [2] [3] [4] (or mention of it) should not be in this article for these two reasons:

  • this is the uTorrent article, and is not about BitTorrent Inc., their former torrent index, or the MPAA,
  • uTorrent wasn't yet owned by BitTorrent in 2005. That happened in December 2006.

I agreed with the removals of the item, based on copyvio and overquoting, but in the rush did not mention the above two reasons for exclusion. --Lexein (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Big change[edit]

I gathered the three separate sections related to Revenue and subsectioned them, and moved the (now giant) release tables to the end of the article. This is an accessibility and readability issue, to keep the prose together. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

question[edit]

PC Magazine gave the program a positive review saying that it "packs an outstanding array of features".[44] and was also listed in their Best free 157 software tools

how a PC magazine talk about Piracy App — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.132.33.36 (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Winzip Pro Registry Optimizer bundled with uTorrent[edit]

Apparently since 3.13 uTorrent's installer has bundled the download and installation of WPRO. It's a revenue tool, not a virus or worm. It is, however, unwanted, as evidenced by messages in support forums, and the recent addition to the article without source. No WP:RS yet, but now it's on our radar to be on the lookout. --Lexein (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced claim moved here for discussion[edit]

The following was added[5] and reverted:

Still in 2014, µTorrent continues to keep it's subterfugious practice [1] [2] on introducing toolbars and changing search engine without user's consent. This practice has been a recurring complaint of users since 2010.
  1. ^ "Installed newest build, forced to install toolbar and malware?". forum.utorrent.com. Retrieved 01-03-2014. 
  2. ^ "Install without ask toolbar". forum.utorrent.com. Retrieved 01-03-2014. 

Two strikes for sourcing to a non-notable person complaining on a forum (where user error is sole reason for the problems encountered), strike three for extremely POV writing. Unwanted software installation, specifically toolbars, is an increasingly common problem teed up by many software providers, not just uTorrent. Users are the problem, skipping through installation dialog boxes and not reading them. Worst, for us at WP, is that none of these problems have been discussed in independent RS. With RS news coverage, we can include these issues. --Lexein (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time it's been put into the article. Unreliable source and POV issues need to be addressed before it can has a place in this article at the very least. Яehevkor 15:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)